February 21, 2012

... I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document....

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name....

And then he mixed it all up together for our delectation. Mmmm. Taste it: the Real-and-Fake cocktail. Much better than straight real, which is quite bland. No kick! And "climate change" is so very, very important.

"I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues."

So, I want those journalists and experts to come forward and admit to having used him as a source, since he's not anonymous any more.

Using fraud to get documents is a kind of theft, and while they could not have known it was stolen, it is their duty to show that their anonymous source has a clear bias which should color the reader's opinion of the received data.

Unless, getting information through dishonest means (Climate Gate) is no longer a no-no.

Al Gore (and Barack Obama) can lecture us to diminish and impoverish our lifestyles to "save the world" while simultaneously living outsized lives creating ever-growing carbon footprints and we're not to notice.

Can't really blame them though. We let them get away with it, and they're smart enough to notice we're stupid enough to let them.

Even the fraudulent document hardly makes the case that anything nefarious is afoot. The need to see conspiracy overrides the plain obviousness that a) The public global warming skeptics are very public and b) people who want to influence public policy should go ahead and do so within the bounds of free speech, and free association.

The conspiratorial spin that Gleick imparted and that his downstream agents frenetically rebroadcast needs no content. The theory is the message. "Powerful forces and powerful interests stand in your way" and in the way of all that is right and good. Dissent will not be tolerated.

Gleick's (and other Climateers') lack of faith in their own position is revealed by their complete rejection of the scentific method, which is based on doubt, skepticism and constant testing of assumptions and conclusions. They fear inquiry, and utter the mantra "settled science" when they face someone who actually does want scientific inquiry. It's an astonishing rejection of the basic premises of science.

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

--- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. ---

Prevent the debate about climate science, what the other side was doing was trying to debate climate science but the science was settled.

Transparency of the organizations involved, I'd love some UN/EA and other tranparency.

Aren't those organizations involved? This man has spent a very long time believing something and it's starting to look like his love/work isn't panning out like he thought, so he strikes out in anger his worldview is going POOF!

Gleick shows again, that the people who claim that there is a "consensus about the science" don't want to discuss the science.

The AGW proponents want to make ad hominem attacks on AGW skeptics, forge claims about funding of the skeptics, hide data and methodology from public review, corrupt the peer review/science journal system and poison the debate with lies, fakes and forgeries.

Notice that the article laments that this situation will once again distract from the real and all important issue of climate change.

The global warming fraud was a masterpiece from the start. Those scientists who perpetrated it for money and for their own fame were able to co-opt the left/liberals and the left wing media through dreams of totalitarian government.

Moreover, the facts were likely to be inconclusive for many year so the gravy train could go on for a long time. The despicable scientists discounted the risk of the totalitarianism... assuming that they would be dead or gone by the time it really took hold.

However, what this team never counted on was the possibility that the facts could turn against them in the short term... which is exactly what it did. Now they have been exposed.

What needs to come next is prosecutions. We need investigations into these scientists to see what frauds they are responsible for. This is not just science. These scientists were giving grave warnings that inaction would lead to disaster, when they knew that their findings were fraudulent. Millions even billions of lives have been affected by this fraud.

"Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick."

Whoever forged the Heartland memo was trying to use the same technique used with the Mohammed cartoons - the actual cartoons were too tame, so the imans protesting the cartoon threw in a fake cartoon of Mohammed having sex with a dog to amp the outrage quotient.

Agreed, but of even more importance is the incoming earth-killing meteor. It's also very important, and unlike climate change, is absolutely gonna be a bad thing. This is something we may actually be able to do something about. All current climate grants should be redirected toward this threat. Wouldn't it be sad if NASA was all ready to fight the climate, but totally unprepared for a cataclysmic aerospace challenge.

"We are sorry to report that our downward focused technology did not catch the thing that's gonna kill us all."

It will make the entire human race a lost, unknown occurrence that will only be known to aliens from the faint residual signals of a TV show called "Jersey Shore" Apparently a creature called "Snooki" was our religious leader and queen.

Robin's point is a good one: AGW proponents are not discussing science, they are making only ad hominem attacks. This memo, which the left thought would devastate the Skeptic's did not deal with the scientific dispute, it dealt with things like nefarious Koch funded strategies for funding and making their positions clear. No science at all.

Climate change is important. It has many impacts on humanity. The fact that the climate has been constantly changing throughout geologic time is a certainty. During the last Ice Age, virtually all of what is now Canada and some of the northern US was under a thick sheet of ice. Then something happened and the ice melted. Since there were very few people around back then and no factories or SUVs, that massive instance of global warming happened naturally. And it will happen again regardless of what we feeble humans do.

The smoking gun was with the 'fake' memo. All of the juicy bits, all of the quotations are from that one memo. Which ironically was what tipped off people to suspect Gleick as being the leaker. Now that he's confess of being one, he's still trying to place the blame on anonymous mailer (elf) for that bit.

No, never, never, never use the word fascist to describe the mindset of someone like Gleick. No, not ever. It would be wrong. Yes, wrong to use the word fascist to describe a power-worshiping lickspittle and morally-hollow, sycophantic press lewinsky. No, the word fascist would be inappropriate and unreasonable.

Sloanasaurus 10:03 AM "The scientists discounted the risk of totalitarianism... assuming that they would be dead or gone by the time it really took hold."

I think it's worse than that: They didn't worry about totalitarianism because they expected to be privileged members of the Apparat.

The twentieth century has shown that our academic elites have a disturbing tendency to support totalitarian systems, all the while posing and preening as courageous defenders of liberty. And even when they are not advancing totalitarianism, they usually prove to be the most craven of cowards.

I am awed by desmogblog.com (who was one of the ones who broke the original story):"Whistleblower Authenticated Heartland Documents"."So, while admitting that he impersonated a third party in order to induce Heartland to confirm its own ongoing questionable conduct, Gleick has effectively caught Heartland squarely in the headlights, proving that the Institute has dissembled and lied."

The fault is in ourselves. We willingly listen to liars telling lies. It's got something to do with "fairness"; we think we should give them a fair hearing. Yet they've proven themselves liars again and again.

Stumbled across something in Ezekial this morning that's relevant. One of the reasons the Almighty got fed up with (and promised to destroy) His people, the Israelites, is that they listen to lies. In that case the lies of diviners and false prophets; people proven untrustworthy in the past We've got the same thing going here....in spades (no racism intended).

He did this in order to foster transparency. WTF. I can't imagine tactics more likely to foster cynicism and distrust. The fact that he still retains the belief that the worthiness of his ends justifies any shortcut to get there, only increases one's suspicions and distrust.....I have no expertise to judge the claims and counter claims of the AGW debate, but the AGW supporters are patently acting in bad faith. They argue with the stridency and velocity of bigots.

"LOL. Like we would trust SCIENTISTS to tell us a meteor is about to his us."

If they told us, that the meteor was a small one like the millions of meteors that have always impacted, but that this one was special because it was due to our overuse of magnets that attracted it, and that therefore it would be extra special bad, then yea, I would question the title "scientist" and if that title makes the holder incapable of lying or stupidity. If he worked was in any way associated with the U.N., I'd just ask him who's paying him.

---Their goal is to destroy public education. They never speak of success stories, do they? Just horrible fucking people.----

My niece just learned that The Crusades were the Christian's fault.

That is not proper history.

Successes? Kids today couldn't pass tests from 50 or more years ago.

Phoenics is replaced by whole language, math is replaced by new math, that doesn't work, so new new math replaces math, the false religion of MMGW is preached, and history is distorted.

Let's see, I've covered English, Math, Science and History.

FAIL FAIL FAIL

Where's Romney on this climate stuff? Holding his fire until he gets the nom and thinks he's safe?

Maybe more people would give him a 2nd look if he wasn't such a coward. What's the matter, can't stand the heat? Sure, they'll spin it, but if he can't handle the slings now, his presidency will be death by 1000 cuts.

I don't see anything wrong with this tactic. Let's see: "May I please have your top-secret documents?" "Sure here ya go." However, Gleick was the wrong person to do it; as an active participant in the debate, he needs to stay above the fray. But I'd give it a go. I have no reputation to sacrifice. Given the gravity of the situation, I'd call it no holds barred.

By the way, I really wish people used their real names here. Then history, and your grandchildren, could assign blame accurately.

My name is Donald Andrew Burden, Ph.D. I see that my profile no longer displays my name. I am quite happy to be judged by history as my conscience is clear. You see, I am somewhat militant about what constitutes proof in science. You must be that way if you are to be a responsible peer-reviewer; but it is much more important to be that way regarding your own work (Popper has a great quote on that point).

"By the way, I really wish people used their real names here. Then history, and your grandchildren, could assign blame accurately."

Given the propensity of the Left to target people they disagree with, it's not such a good idea. I try not to say anything that I would be embarrassed about if my name were on it, I have no interest in playing the game the way the Left plays it.

It is odd that Peter Gleick was head of the AGU task force on scienitic ethics. More detail on what happened here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/#more-57113 and here http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-confesses/#comments

Garage: "Like we would trust SCIENTISTS to tell us a meteor is about to his us"

Hey GM, how much mathematics do you know? Are you aware of how many variables there are in predicting an exact course for a comet or meteor? That's why you'll only hear them state a probability for something like a meteor strike.

But at least in that situation we understand what the variables *are*. With "climate science" we don't even know that. And the variables we *do* know are far too numerous to assemble a model capable of meaningful predictions. Yet you never hear the uncertainty mentioned in the press releases of the warmists. The meteor watchers deserve my trust. The warmists deserve my contempt for giving a bad rap to mathematical modelling.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).

(b) For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated.

(c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social networking Internet Web site in another person’s name.

(d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(e) In addition to any other civil remedy available, a person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of subdivision (a) may bring a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) and subdivision (g) of Section 502.

I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document....

Anyone else notice the similarities between this and the Killian documents? Rathergate?

I followed the thread in HuffPo and went to a blog from some off the wall retired USAF Colonel who had a leadline on his blog "71 year old military retiree threatened". Turns out he has his panties in a bunch because he sent a letter to Heartland accusing a Mr. Bast of being a traitor to his country. Bast responded in rightful anger, threatening an FBI report. I am offended because I am a 65 year old military retiree and it pains me to see such a display of infantile stupidity.

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

I can't find the quote anywhere, but does this remind anyone else of the Black Panther Party scene from Forrest Gump where the anti-war guy hits Jenny, then afterward tries to excuse it by blaming it on Johnson and the war?

"When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I'd say it is crucial that the other members of the community say 'Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!' and not, 'Well, he's apologized and I really think it's pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that's so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.' "After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else."

His argument is akin to climatic variance. Over a sufficiently long period of time, it is effectively a zero-sum process... or so we hope. Unfortunately, while Gleick presumes to up the ante, the Earth has already called his bluff, and he will realize negative progress.